| Literature DB >> 29649160 |
Elżbieta Biernat1, Sonia Buchholtz2, Justyna Krzepota3.
Abstract
Background: The article is devoted to an analysis of leisure-time (amateur) table tennis in Poland, its practitioners and the regularities of their activity.Entities:
Keywords: Poland; amateur sport; binary logistic regression; leisure-time physical activity; table tennis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29649160 PMCID: PMC5923780 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040738
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample characteristics.
| Variable | Sample | Physically Active | Table-Tennis Practitioners | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | |||
| 12,406 | 5504 | 346 | ||||||
| gender | Male | 5799 | 46.7 | 2721 | 49.4 | 233 | 67.3 | <0.001 |
| Female | 6606 | 53.2 | 2783 | 50.6 | 113 | 32.7 | ||
| age group | 5–14 | 1452 | 11.7 | 1061 | 19.3 | 94 | 27.2 | <0.001 |
| 15–29 | 2716 | 21.9 | 1632 | 29.7 | 128 | 37.0 | ||
| 30–44 | 2645 | 21.3 | 1177 | 21.4 | 84 | 24.3 | ||
| 45–59 | 2817 | 22.7 | 959 | 17.4 | 36 | 10.4 | ||
| 60–74 | 2051 | 16.5 | 570 | 10.4 | 8 | 2.3 | ||
| >74 | 724 | 5.8 | 105 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
| place of residence | urban, >500 K | 1234 | 9.9 | 642 | 11.7 | 61 | 17.6 | <0.001 |
| urban, 200–499 K | 989 | 8.0 | 502 | 9.1 | 42 | 12.1 | ||
| urban, 100–199 K | 821 | 6.6 | 384 | 7.0 | 21 | 6.1 | ||
| urban, 20–99 K | 1986 | 16.0 | 911 | 16.6 | 28 | 8.1 | ||
| urban, <20 K | 1331 | 10.7 | 640 | 11.6 | 29 | 8.4 | ||
| rural | 6044 | 48.7 | 2425 | 44.1 | 145 | 41.9 | ||
| income quantile | Q1 (bottom quantile) | 2395 | 19.3 | 1033 | 18.8 | 63 | 18.2 | 0.238 |
| Q2 | 2469 | 19.9 | 982 | 17.8 | 70 | 20.2 | ||
| Q3 | 2492 | 20.1 | 1022 | 18.6 | 60 | 17.3 | ||
| Q4 | 2518 | 20.3 | 1124 | 20.4 | 58 | 16.8 | ||
| Q5 (top quantile) | 2531 | 20.4 | 1343 | 24.4 | 95 | 27.5 | ||
| subjective money management | can afford some luxury | 110 | 0.9 | 82 | 1.5 | 9 | 2.6 | 0.067 |
| can afford anything without devotion | 1179 | 9.5 | 664 | 12.1 | 50 | 14.5 | ||
| live sparingly | 6958 | 56.1 | 3216 | 58.4 | 203 | 58.7 | ||
| live very sparingly | 3759 | 30.3 | 1425 | 25.9 | 81 | 23.4 | ||
| cannot afford for basic expenditures | 399 | 3.2 | 117 | 2.1 | 3 | 0.9 | ||
| household size | 1 | 872 | 7.0 | 301 | 5.5 | 18 | 5.2 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 2720 | 21.9 | 989 | 18.0 | 46 | 13.3 | ||
| 3 | 2777 | 22.4 | 1208 | 21.9 | 57 | 16.5 | ||
| 4 | 3001 | 24.2 | 1571 | 28.5 | 121 | 35.0 | ||
| 5+ | 3035 | 24.5 | 1435 | 26.1 | 104 | 30.1 | ||
Notes: p-value—table-tennis practitioners chi-square p-value, K—thousand.
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of table tennis practice according to the model estimates.
| Variable | Odds Ratio | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 2.189 | 0.005 | <0.001 | 2.179 | 2.198 |
| Female | ref. | |||||
| Age | age | 1.079 | 0.000 | <0.001 | 1.078 | 1.079 |
| age squared | 0.999 | 0.000 | <0.001 | 0.999 | 0.999 | |
| place of residence | urban, >500 K | 1.995 | 0.007 | <0.001 | 1.982 | 2.008 |
| urban, 200–499 K | 1.766 | 0.006 | <0.001 | 1.754 | 1.778 | |
| urban, 100–199 K | 0.881 | 0.004 | <0.001 | 0.873 | 0.889 | |
| urban, 20–99 K | 0.996 | 0.003 | 0.195 | 0.990 | 1.002 | |
| urban, <20 K | 1.034 | 0.004 | <0.001 | 1.027 | 1.042 | |
| rural | ref. | |||||
| income per capita | log income per capita (PLN) | 1.196 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 1.191 | 1.201 |
| subjective financial situation | can afford some luxury | 3.026 | 0.041 | <0.001 | 2.947 | 3.106 |
| can afford anything w/o thrift | 2.436 | 0.029 | <0.001 | 2.381 | 2.494 | |
| must save for big purchases | 2.544 | 0.029 | <0.001 | 2.487 | 2.601 | |
| must economize a lot | 2.155 | 0.025 | <0.001 | 2.108 | 2.204 | |
| cannot afford basic necessities | ref. | |||||
| studying | yes | 2.876 | 0.009 | <0.001 | 2.857 | 2.894 |
| no | ref. | |||||
| # children in household | 0 | ref. | ||||
| 1 | 1.225 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 1.218 | 1.231 | |
| 2 | 1.116 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 1.110 | 1.123 | |
| 3+ | 2.392 | 0.010 | <0.001 | 2.373 | 2.411 | |
| constant | 0.001 | 0.000 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |
Notes: n = 5414, due to refusals. Ref.—reference category, K—thousand, #—number. Post-estimation classification: correctly classified 62.91%. Wald test of parameter significance: p-value < 0.001.